Was the 9/11 Report inaccurate in regards to that passage? If not, then it establishes a link between Bin Laden and an armed group within the borders of Iraq that was sanctioned by Saddam.

B

I'll assume that it was as accurate as the several paragraphs that preceded and followed it, which establish a surprising lack of communication and cooperation between Saddam and Bin Laden, as I recall. Now tell me, what was the goal of this armed group, and what was Saddam's goal in supporting it? I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Kurds, right? Unless you can establish a clear intent on the part of this group to commit acts of terrorism against the West, and unless you can establish a clear line of evidence that Saddam was supporting the group for that very reason, it has no meaning in regard to your argument, which is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq, despite your protests to the contrary.

And my sarcasm made a substantial point, which you have chosen to ignore. Maybe the War on Science is next. Oh, I think that already started in Kansas come to think of it....

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon

I'll assume that it was as accurate as the several paragraphs that preceded and followed it, which establish a surprising lack of communication and cooperation between Saddam and Bin Laden, as I recall. Now tell me, what was the goal of this armed group, and what was Saddam's goal in supporting it? I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Kurds, right? Unless you can establish a clear intent on the part of this group to commit acts of terrorism against the West, and unless you can establish a clear line of evidence that Saddam was supporting the group for that very reason, it has no meaning in regard to your argument, which is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq, despite your protests to the contrary.

Jim said there was no connection between Bin laden and Iraq. I offered evidence to the contrary.

I quoted a portion and as you indicate, there was much more and also more in the footnotes. What they indicated to the Senate Select Committee's report (NOT the 9/11 Commission's) was that the relationship between Saddam and Bin Laden had evolved over the previous decade from active hostility on both sides to at least 2 meetings in negotiations for an accommodation and Saddam's active support of Bin Laden's armed group within the borders of Iraq.

Here are some questions that the intelligence and military community asked of itself: Would either Bin Laden or Saddam disband that group once the kurds were brought under control?

Would agreement on support of that group in that instance lead to other cooperative arrangements for other objectives?

Is this an indication that accommodation can be reached between Saddam and Bin Laden on other issues?

You have to be kidding. First, what I said was that Iraq/Saddam had no role in the War on Terror until we occupied the joint. A "role" in the WOT which might warrant the invasion of Iraq by US forces could be defined as participating, supporting or organizing acts of terror against the US and its interests. I did not say Iraq and Bin Laden didn't know each other.

The relationship between Bin Laden and the US is stronger, historically, than what you cited between Iraq/Saddam and Bin Laden. I think you are grasping at straws merely to be argumentative. There is no evidence cited that shows Saddam was a player in the crowd that has attacked the US and its interests around the world for the past decade. Yet there is an abundance of evidence that Ossamma was behind the 9-11-2001 attack. And you engage in nuanced misrepresentations of official reports to suggest Saddam and Iraq were comparably guilty, even complicit, in this attack, which started the war on terror.

But see Jim, that the beauty of the phrase "war on terror", which I have consistently condemned through the course of this thread. Iraq is part of the war on terror, and so is everybody that the administration wants to identify as such, because it's a totally ambiguous phrase without any real meaning -- it's a bumper sticker slogan and nothing more.

Iraq played no part in the 9/11 attack, and as far as we know, played no part in any act of overt or covert terrorism directed at the West, yet Iraq is part of the war on terror, just because the Bush administration said so. And that's the fact, Jack.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon

You have to be kidding. First, what I said was that Iraq/Saddam had no role in the War on Terror until we occupied the joint. A "role" in the WOT which might warrant the invasion of Iraq by US forces could be defined as participating, supporting or organizing acts of terror against the US and its interests. I did not say Iraq and Bin Laden didn't know each other.

The relationship between Bin Laden and the US is stronger, historically, than what you cited between Iraq/Saddam and Bin Laden. I think you are grasping at straws merely to be argumentative. There is no evidence cited that shows Saddam was a player in the crowd that has attacked the US and its interests around the world for the past decade. Yet there is an abundance of evidence that Ossamma was behind the 9-11-2001 attack. And you engage in nuanced misrepresentations of official reports to suggest Saddam and Iraq were comparably guilty, even complicit, in this attack, which started the war on terror.

Jim

Our relationship with Bin laden ended with the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan. And as I suppose you know, the relationship was not with Bin Laden per se but with the Mujahedeen resisting the Soviet invasion, of which Bin Laden was a minor player.

On the other hand, the relationship between Saddam and Bin Laden followed the opposite trajectory -- started hostile and was evolving through accommodation toward a relationship that that could cause one to consider the consequences, if one were inclined with predict growing malignancies rather than wringing one's hands in hopeful silence.

Nowhere in anything I said or implied suggests in any way that Saddam played any role whatsoever in the 9/11 plot. However, I am absolutely comfortable with the concept that Iraq is a battle in the WoT, as are the Bali bombers, the Philippine Muslim insurgency, the bombers in Britain, and the various incompetent gangs that couldn't shoot straight that hope to blow something up in NYC.

I agree with GS and others that the cell recently uncovered in NYC is another one of those -- a loose confederation of incompetents who probably couldn't knock-over a 7-11. I am very uncomfortable with the process by which indictments are brought as it seems awfully close to entrapment. OTOH, even soldiers who can't shoot straight occasionally get lucky. What would we be saying if this cell of Don Knott's clones had actually been able to blow-up some portion of the tank farm? All it would take would be one missing ingredient -- a competent leader. That is, somebody with great leadership skills and the KASOC's.

What about the relationship between Bin Laden's family and the Bush family?

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

Our relationship with Bin laden ended with the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan. And as I suppose you know, the relationship was not with Bin Laden per se but with the Mujahedeen resisting the Soviet invasion, of which Bin Laden was a minor player.

On the other hand, the relationship between Saddam and Bin Laden followed the opposite trajectory -- started hostile and was evolving through accommodation toward a relationship that that could cause one to consider the consequences, if one were inclined with predict growing malignancies rather than wringing one's hands in hopeful silence.

Nowhere in anything I said or implied suggests in any way that Saddam played any role whatsoever in the 9/11 plot. However, I am absolutely comfortable with the concept that Iraq is a battle in the WoT, as are the Bali bombers, the Philippine Muslim insurgency, the bombers in Britain, and the various incompetent gangs that couldn't shoot straight that hope to blow something up in NYC.

I agree with GS and others that the cell recently uncovered in NYC is another one of those -- a loose confederation of incompetents who probably couldn't knock-over a 7-11. I am very uncomfortable with the process by which indictments are brought as it seems awfully close to entrapment. OTOH, even soldiers who can't shoot straight occasionally get lucky. What would we be saying if this cell of Don Knott's clones had actually been able to blow-up some portion of the tank farm? All it would take would be one missing ingredient -- a competent leader. That is, somebody with great leadership skills and the KASOC's.

So you think theses maybes and couldhabeens are reason enough to slaughter 800,000 innocent people? You people are fucking monsters.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

What most of you "I Hate Bush" and "Blame America First" disbelievers fail to recognize is that every terror plot has to begin some place. In their embryonic stages, every terrorist plot will seem--especially to those who don't want to believe it could happen--like "a bunch of bumbling idiots" or the gang who couldn't shoot straight." The terrorists count on our skepticism to get their plots from point A to point B.

There are dozens of videos out there that make this point, but I went to the most liberal source I could find (MSNBC) so as not to be accused of bias: